Friday, June 19, 2015

17 comments:

Always a delight and so refreshing to hear Nick who is so much easier to listen to than those more strident and hectoring devotees of PID - no names, no pack drill - if you know what I mean. Nick's dulcid and sonorous tones drizzle over the airwaves like honeyed rain. Nick is the undisputed king of PID....and he does speak the Queen's English beautifully.Of course, one does not agree with a word Nick says - but that is beside the point.

I used the archaic word "dulcid" which - as you know - is an archaic form of the word"dulcet". This was to highlight the archaic, anachronistic and obsolete PID.Very clever of you to spot it. You really are a most literate, not to mention, literary individual. I bet you have a degree in something. Good to know that not all contributors to Professor Fetzer's esteemed blog are untutored and benighted ignoramuses.

I'm allergic to degrees... mystically came preloaded with a wide grasp of the English lexicon... must've forgotten or never seen that old form, but, honestly, though Paul has been gone nearly half a century, he was born only eleven years before I was... and I'm not THAT much of an antique.

I noticed it wasn't Paul immediately. The memory is vivid and I'm still alive, not too noticeably senile, can assert this isn't really a matter that yields to mere opinion, so if you insist upon being impertinent, you might at least use appropriately anachronistic terms... "dulcet" would do... or "groovy"... or "mellow"... or "smooth"... or even "far out"....

"groovy", "smooth" or "far out" are hardly the " appropriate" vocabulary of informed opinion and opinion, mere or otherwise, isn't worth a damn unless it is based on the facts and facts are something which are decidedly lacking in this Lucy-in-the-sky PID "trip".

" but, honestly, though Paul has been gone nearly half a century"

Really!? I always find that it is wise to give anyone who uses the word "honestly" a wide berth and to treat anything they say or write with extreme caution. As for being "impertinent", perhaps you could get real, really HONEST, lighten up and start presenting conclusive and irrefutable evidence that supports your shameless, flawed and presumptuous PID crock of shit.

"...you might at least use appropriately anachronistic terms... "dulcet" would do... or "groovy"... or "mellow"... or "smooth"... or even "far out"...."

Are you implying that "dulcet" is an " anachronistic term"? You're allergic to degrees...or maybe you just didn't make the grade? You "mystically came preloaded with a wide grasp of the English lexicon!? What are you? A robot? A rather pretentious and arrogant robot at that!! Look, mom! I'm "preloaded with a wide grasp of the English lexicon" - if robots have moms. Is Clare Kuehn another robot that came "preloaded with a wide grasp of the English lexicon" or is her motherboard English lexicon just faulty and incapable of generating intelligible speech?

Dammit, Clare, I'm on your side, but that was the most awful presentation and what the heck is wrong with you?

You could have comprehensively done away with the most obvious excuses and objections in under a half hour, and you are NOT going to get anywhere using the Laurel Canyon crap that is RIDDLED with easily provable factual errors.

I'm really bummed about this. You USED to come off as so bright and reasonable, and now you're making this too effing boring, clarity seemingly permanently booted out the window, and instead of PROgressing in insight, you seem actually to be REgressing.

Then, Fetzer's piece is now missing from VT, and your site is still a mess, and dammit, dammit, dammit!

If you'd taken this to court the jury would've been unable to bear waiting to convict your client. If you're going to use a jury scenario, you need to be able to at least remotely mimic a trial attorney. Nobody, not even the most serious juror, could force themselves to try to train their brains on that INTERMINABLE explication in your presentation.

I'm appalled and down-hearted. WHAT has come over you? FIND someone who can go over this stuff with you and put it into concise English for you. By now you should be able to have a page with devastating bullet points on it that people can try to refute until the cows come home and remain unsuccessful.

The case IS proven... to SANE people... unhypnotized awake people... and the sleepers will NEVER awaken if they're subjected to this AGONIZING display.

I'm going to go put my head in an ice bucket now. "

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/pid.html?m=1

Still got your head in that ice bucket and are you still "really bummed"?

Why don't you represent Ms Clare Kuehn in her "putative" "case". First, commission a pyschological examination of Clare Kuehn to ascertain if she is fit ( compos mentis) to set foot in a court room. Any such pyschological profile must be an essential prerequisite as far as the deluded Ms Kuehn and her delusional PID twaddle are concerned.

My article, "Why Ringo's confession, 'We replaced Paul!', appears to be authentic", is back up more than one place; for example, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/05/why-ringos-confession-we-replaced-paul_11.html

I was one of the little girls who was completely obsessed with the Beatles from the moment they landed here.

Saw them on Ed Sullivan and in their movies and in all the teen magazines, bought all their albums, the works... from the git.

When Faul showed up I immediately recognized it was not Paul. It was obvious, but the creepy part was that no one was acknowledging it. I was being shushed by my mother, my friend who ran around calling herself Mrs. McCartney was appalled, stopped speaking to me.

Upon the release of Yellow Submarine, which was NOT supposed to be solid animation, I lost interest in The Beatles. Something was radically wrong and nobody was talking about it and I didn't want any part of it anymore.

I made another deal out of it a couple years later when the magazine cover declaring that Paul was still with us came out... insisting loudly that it was NOT Paul. Same result.

Now there's some evidence from experts, albeit a dwindling supply of good pictures to work from, and an ability to be in contact with people capable of following the evidence of their own eyes instead of what it’s obvious Authority wants them to believe.

Clare is one of them. But she's gotten all down in the weeds in her effort to convince deceived people how they came to be deceived... trying to remove the insult they feel when confronted by people who were not deceived to begin with or who paid the kind of attention it takes to stop being deceived.

That -- obviously -- is a bottomless pit and Clare, it seems to me, is floundering in it. It upsets me because the truth is the truth. Bad things happen to humanity when we depart from truth. Clare knows it and this makes her valuable to humanity.

That will never be made apparent if she keeps obfuscating the points with all her digressions off to attend to the ego problems that prevent people from understanding, that prevent people from seeing what's in front of them.

When you do that, you get jackasses who immediately distrust anyone who uses the word "honestly"... preferring, I guess, to let things hum along in the not exactly honest zone.

You get people so offended by your attempt to untangle their psychology that they begin insulting yours for revenge.

"When you do that, you get jackasses who immediately distrust anyone who uses the word "honestly"... preferring, I guess, to let things hum along in the not exactly honest zone."

Anyone who prefaces their remarks with the word "Honestly,..." is dubious and suspect. It is taken as read on this blog that someone is speaking honestly without their having to reinforce their remarks with the word "Honestly,..."

Personally, I love it when anyone shows me where I'm wrong, because I don't want to keep being wrong and the help is appreciated greatly. But I seem to be very weird in this... and I would not be convinced by Clare's tack with this problem... except insofar as she points to evidence.

She does point to evidence. She just then heaps it over with time-wasting digressions into psychology in her effort to help light truth for suffering beings. Her motive is pure, but she doesn't realize yet that 99.9% of deluded grownups are only angered when you try to mother them into the light of truth.

And then it's made worse by the choice to liken one's stab at the psychology of deception to a legal argument in court because the case is: Paul McCartney was replaced by an imposter, NOT you aren't recognizing that Faul is not Paul because of [insert her hundreds of reasons here], because too many people only hear you calling them an idiot when you do that, no matter HOW careful you are not to be insulting about it.

She's plenty compos mentis. She's just young. She's just struggling in her effort to understand the trained monkeys all around her who DO, deep down, recognize they ARE trained monkeys, but HATE anyone who makes them feel that. Most people find it much easier, far safer to insist the miserably few truth tellers are crazy than to recognize a trained monkey is running around in their skin.

They seem to think it is a matter of life and death they be allowed to keep pretending they are true adult humans who are not taken in by bald faced lies, stay loose on the world perpetuating lies for future generations to flounder in.

The replacement of Paul was like, say, a college professor being replaced, but his name plate stayed the same as the original, all the other teachers were treating him as though he were the original, the original's wife was by his side at faculty parties, the works. Everywhere you could look for validation on the matter of his replacement is acting like nothing happened. So you're stuck choosing between pitching a public fit and going along with the ruse like a trained monkey.

You’re stuck having to pick between comfy trained monkey and becoming a social outcast or being institutionalized. By far the most people take almost no time simply incorporating the ruse into their version of consensual reality and move life on Monkey Island.

If you are a particularly strong minded trained monkey you might even remember when they made you pretend a stranger was your professor and not be vicious to anyone trying to dredge that up and set the record straight, but most trained monkeys won't hear of it.

Some become worse than plain vicious. They make it their business to never stop harassing the dangerous maniac who's out there publicly trying to ruin Monkey Island with this ear poison about adult human beings on planet Earth.

I agree with your assessment of Clare.Clare has held back P.I.D. for too long.She has done several podcasts on this blog and she has advanced P.I.D. not one centimeter and indeed has hampered and hindered any progress on the P.I.D. front.Clare's most recent podcast has been a total and unmitigated disaster. Endless rantings and ravings with no attempt to get to the core of the P.I.D. debate and, of course, the usual complete absence of hard facts or evidence.Anyone who disagrees with Clare is branded as a spook, a loser, a numbskull or as someone who has a disability.I feel Clare and P.I.D. should part company. Clare has done great harm to P.I.D.. I feel that P.I.D. should now be left in the safer and more capable hands of Nick Kollerstrom whose powers of communication are second to none. Nick Kollerstrom must now clean up Clare's mess and do a thorough repairjob on P.I.D.. It is only with Nick's expertise and training in the halls of academe that P.I.D.can move forward and reach a broader andmore receptive audience and following.Clare has had her chance and failed miserably.

Clare Kuehn now claims that Paul McCartney was murdered because of his interest in the JFK assassination. An interest which he shared with Mark Lane who met Paul McCartney. Paul McCartney offered to write the music for Mark Lane's film "Rush to Judgment". An offer which Mark Lane turned down. Clare Kuehn further claims that her imaginary "Faul" or "Sir Paul" , as she calls him, had/has CIA connections. Is there no limit to the fevered speculations of this character Clare Kuehn? Clare Kuehn has been mouthing off for years about her Paul-Is-Dead garbage and its parallels with the JFK assassination. There are, of course, no parallels between the two for obvious reasons; her Paul-Is-Dead "theory" is a hoax and the JFK assassination is a real and well documented event. This fact will not deter Clare Kuehn from manufacturing her spurious claims about both her so-called Paul-Is-Dead theory and the assassination of JFK.

Here's an interesting piece of trivia; Aldous Huxley the English writer and author of several books including Brave New World and The Doors of Perception died on the 22nd November 1963 aged 69 at 4:20 p.m. (Los Angeles time). The question is: How long will it be before Clare Kuehn ropes the late Aldous Huxley into the JFK assassination and perhaps somehow even into her Paul-Is-Dead detritus? Perhaps Aldous Huxley was given a lethal injection by his nurse who was acting under the orders of the CIA? Perhaps Clare Kuehn will claim Aldous Huxley knew too much about JFK and about his assassination and had to be "removed".

The question again is:

How long will it be before Clare Kuehn ropes the late Aldous Huxley into the JFK assassination and her Paul-Is-Dead "theory"?